Point of View

Letter to Editor: Make this an Independence Day for All; Take Down Talbot Boys

July 3, 2020 by Letter to Editor Leave a Comment

I have been reading with interest the ongoing controversy regarding the Talbot Boys and now the behavior of Laura Price at the Talbot County Council meeting.

I would like to offer the following points and perspective:

1. Maryland did not join the Confederacy, the Confederate flag is not our flag. Those citizens who fought with the rebels to defend slavery might be honored by their families but have no place at the people’s courthouse. Further, to what purpose was the statue commissioned almost 50 years after the war with private money and during the Jim Crow era? The Confederacy lost the war,we must stop revising history and move forward.

2. Can you name a civil war in any other country where monuments to the losing side are honored in the public square? You will not find any honoring South Vietnamese soldiers in Vietnam.

It is a national tragedy that brother fought brother in a bloody war. It seems to me that in our attempt to heal the rift, too many concessions were made to the sensibilities of white southern citizens and contributed to our turning a blind eye to the continued suppression of our black brothers and sisters.

Perhaps Laura Price could open her mind and listen with intent to understand before asking to be understood. We must look beyond our white privilege, open our eyes, our ears and our hearts to our neighbors of color. Yes, changing demographics mean the browning of America. Instead of meeting the inevitable with denial, fear and futilely trying to hold on to the status quo, let us embrace and fulfill the promise of our American constitution: All men are created equal. Let’s make this an Independence Day for all of us.

Donna L. von Lipsey
Easton

Letter to Editor: What is a Permissible Conflict of Interest

July 2, 2020 by Letter to Editor 3 Comments

Our neighbors and friends in St. Michaels have been asking why we remain concerned about the ethics issue in St. Michaels government. We’re concerned because the Town has an ongoing ethics problem.

We brought a complaint before the town Ethics Commission because we were concerned that Town Commission President Bill Boos’ persistent refusal to have the Town Commissioners even consider the skateboard park as a location for the new town hall might have been influenced by his relationship with the Maritime Museum. The Ethics Commission refused to consider what we had to say and dismissed our complaint after a secret hearing and after delegating the decision to its attorney. This was in violation of our right as citizens to a fair hearing on the facts of the complaint.

We sued the ethics commission – not the town or any commissioner – in Talbot County Circuit Court because we were denied a fair hearing. That Court found that the rules of the Ethics Commission were hopelessly confusing. In the words of the Court: “The Ethics Commission’s Rules not only fail to comply with its statutory mandate, they set up standards that are so confusing that the complainant cannot be reasonably assured of the process that will be used.” The Court also judged that in denying our complaint without a hearing, the Ethics Commission had used “an unlawful procedure.” The court held that, based on the allegations in our ethics complaint, we had a “reasonable basis to proceed.”

The court required the Ethics Commission to hold a proper hearing and it complied. We were disappointed, but not surprised, when the Ethics Commission then held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. The Ethics Commission could hardly do otherwise: its Chair, Ms. Sidney Davenport-Trond, has the same sort of conflict we claimed influenced Mr. Boos. His company has an exclusive contract to broker luxury yachts donated to the Maritime Museum. Ms. Davenport-Trond is a “Platinum Partner” preferred catering provider to the Maritime Museum. The Maritime Museum’s interest in acquiring the skateboard park is well known. Ms. Davenport-Trond was given the opportunity to recuse herself and refused. If the Ethics Commission had ruled against Mr. Boos, it would have been indicting its own Chair.

The location of the new town hall was not the issue in the ethics hearing. Recusal in matters in which a public official might have the appearance of a conflict of interest was the issue. The Ethics Commission held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. What is a “permissible” conflict of interest? A permissible conflict of interest isn’t permissible at all. There is no such thing as a permissible conflict of interest, and we expect better of our public officials.

John Novak
On behalf of the St. Michaels Action Committee

Thoughts on Washington, Lee, and Washington & Lee by Matt LaMotte

July 2, 2020 by Opinion 5 Comments

Under the present circumstances in America today, I’ve had a number of recent conversations about my college alma mater, Washington & Lee University. As the second of three generations to graduate from W&L, I have deep ties with the University as well as great appreciation for the value of my four years there.

Robert E. Lee’s Tomb – Washington & Lee University

I attended W&L in the early ‘70’s, when it began admitting students of color. My fraternity was the first to desegregate, a matter of no small controversy at the time. The next controversy, which seems almost quaint three-plus decades later, was whether or not to admit women. In the mid-’80s, despite much dismay and dissent among its alumni, Washington & Lee became co-ed. Fast forward a little more than three decades, and W&L is once again at a tipping point: the controversy over its namesakes’ connections to slavery.

Our society — including the institutions of higher learning that produce many of our political, business and civic leaders — needs to accept responsibility for the legacy of racism in order to move forward toward greater peace, justice and opportunity for all. This is the change that our times now call for, loud and clear.

This applies to W&L no less than to scores of other institutions around the country. Princeton University has set a bold example by striking Woodrow Wilson’s name from its business school. Of note, around 20% of W&L’s most recent graduates requested, and were granted, the omission of both Washington’s and Lee’s profile images from their diplomas.

Over the years, the University has established numerous student, faculty, alumni, board and administration special committees tasked with resolving challenging issues brought by changing times. Co-education, college affordability and diversity are just a few of those issues addressed by rigorous examination, debate and resolve. The challenge now is the University’s actual name, which honors the memory of men who owned slaves. In particular, Robert E. Lee not only led a Confederate army in the fight to protect slavery, his harsh conduct as a slave owner is well documented.

In my own opinion, the values and traditions upheld and advanced by the University today are no longer well served by its namesakes. I believe that responding in a positive and proactive way to the call for change would be the wisest course. W&L is highly competitive and widely respected, and continues to send well-educated young men and women into the American workforce and society every year. A change in name will not detract from its value and reputation in the national higher education community.

Whatever changes the W&L trustees and administration ultimately decide will likely be contentious. Change always is. But I believe that change and progress are conjoined, and for the continued advancement of the University, I hope for both.

Matt LaMotte graduated from Washington & Lee University in 1974. He presently teaches American history and U.S. government courses at Saints Peter & Paul High School.

Put Me In Coach….by Angela Rieck

July 2, 2020 by Angela Rieck 1 Comment

Recently I wrote a column about the steps that we need to take to make real change in the criminal justice system, starting with the front lines, the police. One of the key components of change is effective, nonjudgmental coaching.

Constance Morris Hope is helping me understand how coaching can be an effective tool. She is a seasoned executive coach specializing in coaching in multi-racial and multi-cultural environments. With over 35 years of experience in 26 US government agencies, 39 countries, non-profit organizations, and academia, she has seen how coaching can impact real change in complex and diverse situations.

Since the police officer’s job is one of the most complex and stressful jobs in the public sector, I wanted to find out from an expert what is needed to help us move toward a more racially empathetic environment.

Question: You indicated that it is critical that the police and justice system want to change. How do you know if there is real commitment to change?

Leadership creates culture, so assessing leadership’s readiness to change and the level of trust between leadership and rank and file is the first place to start. Other key elements are a sense of urgency and the formal and informal communication systems. Change starts at the top, but it will not happen unless all are involved.

Question: What should we know about coaching that will help us understand its value in making change?

Coaching is not something that is “done” to you, nor does a coach show her client how ‘to do’ something. Our mantra is that our clients are naturally creative, resourceful, and whole. Coaching is a collaborative process where the client sets the direction and agenda and the coach asks questions assist him in. Greater self-awareness is the key!

Question: Which is more important, coaching officers or police leadership?

I think both are important, but it might be important to start with leadership, since leaders model the culture and set the standards. In a 2017 study published in Police Chief, 46% of subscribers felt that leadership was the most important factor in establishing change.

Question: What plan or strategy would you use to coach police officers and their leaders if you had the opportunity?

I would first assess their readiness for change. Next, I would ask them to define what success looks like. What measures would we use? What needs to happen? Who needs to be involved?

Most importantly, I would build their Emotional Intelligence (EI).

Emotional Intelligence is awareness of your own emotions and those of others; and using that information to build relationships and change your behavior. Self-awareness and empathy are the keys to improving Emotional Intelligence.

Emotions are central to everything that we do, every relationship that we have. They guide and direct our thinking, but they can also ‘hijack’ our reasoning and logic, leading us to make poor decisions and take actions that we might regret later.

High Emotional Intelligence helps officers to:

Recognize triggers, including their unconscious biases, and immediately apply reasoning skills to make good decisions.
Understand, manage, and control their emotions at the same time, recognizing the emotions of others. This keeps them from overreacting in challenging situations.
Develop conflict management skills which focus on resolving rather than escalating.
Manage their impulses by controlling their emotions instead of allowing their emotions to control them.
Cope with emotional/confrontational citizens.
Be more effective and efficient with crowd-control or policing civil protests and demonstrations, arresting people, interrogating suspects, and interviewing witnesses and complainants.

Question: You explained that the Amygdala autonomic response can be especially problematic in police jobs. The Amygdala recognizes dangerous situations and reacts automatically. Can you elaborate how coaching can help “short circuit” the Amygdala and allow the rational brain to take over?

The Amygdala is the most ancient part of the brain and forms a part of the limbic system where our emotions live. This alarm system was crucial for our ancestors who needed it to recognize life-threatening situations. The Amygdala still performs that function; however, today’s threats are less deadly. The person who cuts us off in traffic, or who interrupts us, or who must be right, or is argumentative, all those can trigger an Amygdala response.

The Amygdala can also respond when we perceive threat in the face of DIFFERENCE. Our Amydala causes us to experience an emotional reaction before we have a logical response. If we let the Amygdala be in control it will take over the logical brain. This is called an AMYGDALA HIJACK and can result in a disproportionate reaction to a situation. Unconscious biases can trigger an AMYGDALA HIJACK. Training and coaching can help officers recognize and identify situations or people that might trigger an AMYGDALA HIJACK and help them develop strategies to allow the logical part of their brain to engage.

Question: If you had a magic wand, what would be the first thing that you would ask for regarding the police and justice for the African-American?

I would like to see ‘policing’ re-branded to be seen and experienced by diverse communities/populations as a force for good. Police officers would be perceived as protectors of their well-being, as allies. I would like to see public confidence restored in communities where it once was and created where it never was. For that to happen, those responsible for policing and law enforcement will have to have greater emotional intelligence. They would have to change their attitudes, motivations, behaviors, perspectives, and understandings to be more attuned to the communities they serve. Building better relationships with and within diverse communities would go a long way to re-branding.

Question: Do you think that racism in the justice system is everywhere?

I think there is entrenched inequality that goes beyond the criminal justice system that amplifies the broader questions of lingering racial inequities in the United States. We have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes.

This does not mean that the people who work in them are racist. They are enforcing the rules and regulations that perpetuate these inequities. They are doing their job. The question that they and we must ask ourselves is what can we personally do about the situation?

Question: Do you have any final thoughts?

My experience is that coaching one person at a time can create significant change that can ripple through the organization. It may require patience, but it creates lasting change.

Change doesn’t happen overnight. We can take all the courses that we want and get all the coaching that is offered, but if we don’t put into practice what we learn or if leadership doesn’t support it, change won’t happen. We need to understand that a lot of this is biology-based. We need to rewire our brains, rewire our neurological pathways, develop new habits, new autopilot responses, new ways of seeing the world. And that requires intention and practice, practice, and more practice!

Note: Constance Hope lives in St Michaels and is a local advocate for racial understanding. She can be reached carapacecoaching@aol.com

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

Reckless Endangerment In a Pandemic by J.E. Dean

July 1, 2020 by J.E. Dean 3 Comments

Several States are now reporting record numbers of new cases of the coronavirus. Over 2.5 million cases nationwide are now on record, with over 66,700 in Maryland. It may still be part of the first wave or the beginning of the feared second, but call it what you will, it means that the crisis will be with us for much longer than we hoped. Saying this is unfortunate is an understatement. Many more people will die, suffer pain, and experience economic hardship as a result.

Although it may be a while before a definitive analysis is done that establishes causes for the spike in cases, one obvious explanation is the relaxation of social distancing and the widespread disregard for the CDC’s guidelines for masks, hand-washing and other preventive measures. If all of us were as diligent on these measures as people in several other countries, the pandemic would be much more under control.

Why is the U.S. so ineffective at controlling the virus? Maybe it’s our system of limited government. China has enjoyed great success at stopping the spread of the virus because of its authoritarian government. In China, when the government tells you to stay home, you stay home or ignore the order at your own peril. Here, consequences are minimal. We absolutely don’t want an authoritarian government here (at least most of us don’t), but as far as controlling a pandemic is concerned, it has its advantages.

Disturbingly, too many of us are quite comfortable throwing our masks away, going to crowded beaches, or otherwise abandoning social distancing. This is especially true of the young, many of whom apparently believe that while they may get sick or pass the virus on to others, they themselves are not likely to die. The apparent assumption is that high-risk individuals, such as this writer, need to take responsibility for their own safety. Not only is such an attitude uncivil, it ought to be illegal. We should not have the right to recklessly expose others to a deadly virus. But it gets worse. Some of our community and political leaders actively encourage people to violate CDC guidelines. Among these people are some pastors and, of course, our President.

Did you watch the rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix? I cringed as I saw a young, maskless father frolicking with his infant son before one of the speeches. Where are Child Protective Services when you need them? And should these rallies have been held at all? More than 6,000 people chose to attend in Tulsa. Is it their “right” to throw caution to the winds? It is under current law. And we would be foolish to change that. What should be changed are the consequences for anyone organizing or holding an event likely to create substantial risk to others.

Did you know that before the Tulsa rally, the President’s campaign staff combed through the stands and removed stickers that directed attendees not to sit in every other seat. The stickers read, “Do Not Sit Here, Please!” Because campaign staff removed the stickers, social distancing was largely ignored in the arena, despite there being plenty of space. Was the removal of these stickers, which reflected the obvious intention to discourage social distancing for the purpose of creating the appearance of a full arena, a crime? I say “yes.” View the video for yourself here.

A new statute should be passed that creates criminal penalties for “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic.” Such a statute would create safe harbors for events that adopted and enforced the CDC guidelines —things like not only requiring masks but removing anyone from the event who refused to wear one. Events organized or held would by subject to fines or other penalties. Importantly, the structure of this legislation must balance civil liberties with effectively addressing the virus.

Had the “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic Act” been the law of the land earlier this month, the Trump campaign would face prosecution. That will strike some readers as unfair, but if hundreds if not thousands of lives would be saved, maybe it’s not. Citizens do not have the right to recklessly endanger other citizens.

This country needs to take this pandemic seriously, or 2021 will be worse than 2020. We need to learn from our mistakes made to date and admit that until we get a vaccine, social distancing and the rest of the CDC guidelines are our best bet for survival. Passing a “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic Act” may seem draconian, but it may be necessary.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Open Letter to Talbot County Council from NAACP and ACLU on Councilmember Laura Price Conduct

July 1, 2020 by Letter to Editor 21 Comments

We write on behalf of the Talbot County Branch of the NAACP and its President, Richard Potter, as well as Trappe resident Ari Rubenstein and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, regarding unlawful censorship at County Council meetings when speakers express concern or criticism about the conduct of elected officials. Specifically at issue is censorship of criticism about Councilmember Price’s remarks at the Council’s June 23 meeting dismissing as false and overly “emotional” deeply-felt community concerns about racial inequities in Talbot County. As explained below, Mrs. Price’s use of authority to silence her critics violates the First Amendment.

At this moment when Black people across America are suffering enormous anguish triggered by events displaying official contempt for their lives and well being, it is critically important for all elected officials to open their minds and listen to the voices of their constituents, particularly on charged issues of race. Regrettably, Councilmember Price’s approach instead displayed both ignorance about the lived reality of many Black people in the community, and an unwillingness to listen and learn about perspectives different from her own. Accordingly, we ask you to publicly address and apologize for these incidents at the next Council meeting, and provide assurances that such abuse of authority will not recur in the future.

We note, and appreciate, that Mr. Pack contacted Mr. Potter on June 24 to privately apologize for any role he played in allowing Mrs. Price to censor Mr. Potter’s speech.

The Facts at Issue

As you know, the agenda for the County Council’s June 23 meeting contained several measures proposed by Council and community members to address race equity concerns, including establishment of a formal “Diversity Statement” for County government, and institution of regular diversity trainings and assessments. The agenda also included a resolution – long sought by the NAACP and other members of the community – concerning removal and possible replacement of the “Talbot Boys” Confederate monument. Indeed, we find the irony rich that Mrs. Price made her remarks denying the reality of racial issues in the County at the very same meeting where the Council was addressing removal from the Courthouse lawn of this controversial statue symbolizing white supremacy and racial oppression to so many.

Among the objectionable statements Mrs. Price made during the June 23 meeting were her contentions that measures addressing diversity were unnecessary, and her outright dismissal of racism saying “we do not have a problem here with this.” (Video, 37:56) “We don’t need to make a huge deal out of this,” she proclaimed, (Video, 38:40) in total disregard for the feelings of Black constituents whose experience living in Talbot County is quite different from hers. To make matters worse, Mrs. Price also contended that anyone who dared to disagree with her – expressly including Council President Pack – was being overly “emotional.” (Video, starting at 49:05) Coming from an elected representative of the Talbot County government, Mrs. Price’s pronouncements outraged many, prompting some speakers to want to respond during the portion of the meeting set aside for public comment. That is exactly what Mr. Rubenstein and Mr. Potter set out to do when it was their turn to speak.

Unfortunately, however, Councilmember Price was not willing to hear it. During the public comment portion of the Council meeting, Mr. Rubenstein, participating in the meeting via telephone, expressed his concern about Mrs. Price’s attempt to pretend away the existence of any race discrimination in the County, calling it “disgusting.” As he said this, Mrs. Price raised her voice, exclaiming: “[T]hat’s inappropriate!” (Video, starting at 3:15:00) President Pack then cut in, asking Mr. Rubenstein to give the Council his comments without any “direct.” Struggling to understand what this instruction might mean, Mr. Rubenstein altered his remarks to drop Councilmember Price’s name from the rest of his comments. He then provided a series of statistics revealing racial disparities in Talbot County government to dispute Mrs. Price’s uninformed contention that there exist no racial inequities in local government.

Video of this meeting, which was conducted partly in person, and partly remotely, is available at this link

The problem got significantly worse when it was Richard Potter’s turn to speak. Mr. Potter, the well-known President of the Talbot County NAACP, called in to the meeting to address the Talbot Boys resolution, as well as Councilmember Price’s false claim that there is no racial divide in Talbot County. As is his nature, Mr. Potter spoke in a respectful and reasonable, albeit impassioned, tone. He commended Councilmember Divillio for his initiative in proposing a resolution for the long-running Talbot Boys dispute, then turned his attention to Councilmember Price’s “appalling” remarks opposing any vote on the diversity statement or training, and claiming no racial issues exist in Talbot County. “This has got to stop!” interrupted Councilwoman Price, in a piercing voice. Mr. Potter continued nevertheless, saying what was clear already to many in the audience: “It’s obvious that she is speaking from her white privilege.” At this, Councilmember Price pushed back her chair, grabbed her purse and snapped “I’m done.” As she rose from her chair, and Mr. Potter went on trying to speak, Councilmember Price rudely spoke over him, demanding “if you don’t stop him, I’m leaving.” Responding to Mrs. Price, the clerk controlling the technology for the meeting said she was trying to “mute” Mr. Potter as quickly as she could, succeeding in this effort to silence Mr. Potter a few seconds later. (Video, starting at 3:17:20)
No rule was cited to justify this action, no legitimate objection made or discussed. Rather, Councilwoman Price decided unilaterally to deny Mr. Potter his opportunity as a citizen of Talbot County to be heard on matters that impact his community. It was, as Mr. Potter said of Mrs. Price’s other conduct, appalling.

The President then abruptly ended the public comment section of the meeting. (Video, at 3:18:15)

The Governing Law

It should go without saying that criticism of public officials lies at the heart of the speech protected by the First Amendment. E.g. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966) (“Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized.”). As the Court put it in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), “we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Id. at 270. And as courts around the country have repeatedly determined, prohibition of critical comments about public officials at meetings of public bodies that are overbroad and/or content or viewpoint based restrictions violate the First Amendment. E.g., Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 811-821 (9th Cir. 2013) (City council’s prohibition on “any personal, impertinent, profane, insolent, or slanderous remarks” violates First Amendment); Bach v. School Bd. of City of Virginia Beach, 139 F. Supp. 2d 738, 743 (E.D. Va. 2001) (school board bylaw that prohibited “personal attacks” during the general public comment period of board meetings was facially unconstitutional); Gault v. City of Battle Creek, 73 F. Supp. 2d 811 (W.D. Mich. 1999) (Granting preliminary injunction against city commision rule barring personal attacks at public comment portion of meeting; comments about police chief’s extramarital affair protected by First Amendment); Leventhal v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 973 F. Supp. 951 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (School board bylaw prohibiting criticism of district employees at board meetings violates First Amendment); Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719, 730 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

(Granting preliminary injunction against school board policy prohibiting comments that include charges or complaints against any district employee).
Here, Councilwoman Price cannot even claim to be enforcing any County rule to justify silencing her critics, as the County has no such rule. There is nothing in the County’s “Meetings Protocols”3 allowing officials to stifle speech that is protected by the First Amendment just because they don’t like it. Rather, members of the public are allotted three minutes in which to speak their minds on relevant topics of their choice, including expressing concern or criticism of public officials. As such, Councilwoman Price’s abuse of authority to silence criticism was unlawful.
***
Never have citizen rights to speak freely and to petition their government for redress of grievances been more vital than they are today, as America faces a historic reckoning about race and racial justice. Talbot County is not exempt from this moment, as the Council has recognized by proposing resolutions and initiatives concerning issues of race, equity and diversity. Members of the community strongly support this; they wish to seize this opportunity to engage with elected officials in courageous conversations aimed at acknowledging and reconciling the evils of the past and their continuing legacy. This requires County Council members not only to speak boldly, but also to listen thoughtfully, especially to viewpoints and opinions that differ from their own. Councilmember Price’s June 23 actions precluded this, and if her interference with citizen speech rights is left unaddressed, it will hinder progress at this pivotal moment.

For these reasons, we ask you to publicly address the Council’s error in censoring citizen speech, and commit to conduct future meetings in accordance with the Constitution. Please contact us, or have your attorney contact us, at 410-357-0996 or 410-736-8669 if you would like to discuss these issues further, and to let us know how you intend to proceed.

Deborah A. Jeon Legal Director
Vikrant S. Chandel Law Clerk
NAACP and ACLU

Talbot County Meeting Protocols:

Out and About (Sort of): Objectivity—Fact or Fiction? By Howard Freedlander

June 30, 2020 by Howard Freedlander 4 Comments

Is it possible? If not, what should the standard be?

Journalism 101 instructs students to follow the facts, subjugate your bias and preconceived notions and save opinions for the editorial page. That’s what I was taught more than 50 years ago.

I always wondered, particularly as the editor of the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer, if I were really being objective when selecting lead stories for the front page and writing headlines. I wondered if I were fooling myself. When I developed and cultivated sources, did I select people with whom I felt socially and intellectually comfortable?

Probably.

My most memorable story was coverage and commentary about political shenanigans on Kent Island by an experienced politician and local merchant who offered booze to folks waiting in line to vote. A long, quaint tradition, so I understood.

Raised in a political household by a mother who hallowed honesty in an uncompromising way, I despised political chicanery, especially when it affected voting.

Tainted voting was a sacrilege to me. Some may find this laughable in light of the massive amount of money raised and spent these days by candidates and PACs to affect the outcome through positive and negative advertising and sophisticated attempts to promote as well as suppress the vote.

Looking back, I am certain I did the right thing. The county official was furious with me. So what, if he offered booze to folks seeking distraction while waiting in line to vote? No big deal, just business as usual. He lost the election, if I recall correctly.

Clearly, I was swayed by my upbringing, my aversion to blatantly illegal election behavior. I couldn’t look the other way and dismiss the behavior as nothing consequential. It bothered my belief system.

My point is obvious. We can’t be objective, even if we’re right about rule-breaking. But suppose we were wrong and simply being self-righteous, imposing our high-minded views on others?

Journalists need to be careful about including their personal viewpoints in news stories. Maybe it’s unavoidable.

To take a more current, fraught tack, I believe that media coverage of African-American issues and challenges has been skewed by white reporters and editors. I now question if many years of coverage by well-intended, highly motivated white journalists has really been objective.

Raised in white enclaves, often in privileged circumstances, white journalists generally lack any reference points for adequate coverage of black neighborhoods, black schools, black churches, black poverty, black values and black grievances. They don’t understand another culture, one that might feel bitter about longtime racism, subtle and overt.

I seem to be suggesting that only black reporters report on black topics. I am not. What I’m suggesting is that newsrooms, including reporters, editors and editorial boards, must contain a greater number of African-American faces and voices to produce credible news coverage.

Decisions about what to cover and how and placement of these stories in the daily news lineup should be more diverse and more sensitive. In fact, they have to be.

If objectivity is impossible due to the human condition, even with an understandable obsession with facts, then another standard must govern the media. Some recommend that truth be the guide, that euphemisms and political correctness be consigned to the trash bin.

In some instances, objectivity–telling two sides of a controversy–might be considered unproductive. If the subjects are racism, police brutality, sexual assault and harassment, gender discrimination, economic inequality, ineffective education and other hot buttons, then the media should simply call it out without context.

I could not abide this approach. Yes, the editorial pages should be opinionated with a large dosage of reason. But, the media’s effort to offer differing points of view cannot cease.

Fairness and accuracy are acceptable standards.

Some may view objectivity dated and no longer applicable. I call upon readers to understand that this desirable standard is often unfeasible. However, readers have a right to expect balance, if possible, and inclusion of all voices and backgrounds.

And the unvarnished truth if attainable. Fairness, though, must rank first.

What I’m proposing is balanced coverage, including tough-minded, principled analysis identified as such—while avoiding inflammatory and bigoted language.

Fairness is essential in my view of the world; if that means a two-sided approach practiced well and sometimes boringly by PBS, so be it. It’s informative and thorough. It requires listeners seeking clarity.

A column about journalistic objectivity begs a degree of hubris. Injection of my own world view, developed through experience and familial values, colors my slant.

My default is balance, seasoned by fairness.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Arcturus (Part 2) by Jamie Kirkpatrick

June 30, 2020 by Jamie Kirkpatrick Leave a Comment

When I left you last week, I was heading west on the New York State Thruway, Arcturus strapped securely atop my car. I remember the outline of that day more than its detail. It was late-July hot; the weather was unsettled, there were radio reports of microbursts along the way. It was early in the afternoon and I figured that if all went well—and why wouldn’t it?—I would be home by ten or eleven that night.

When Icarus flew too near the sun, the gods conspired to treat his hubris with the contempt it deserved. The heat of the sun melted the wax that held his feathered wings together and down he fell—down, down, down into the sea.

There was no gasping moment of fall, no crack of sound, no jolt. There was simply a sensation that made me glance in my rearview mirror. And what I saw there defied any kind of rational response: a red canoe tumbling, tumbling over and over behind me down the middle of three lanes on the busy New York State Thruway. A second or two passed, a lightless gap between what I saw and what I understood. It was my canoe—Arcturus—that was flying backwards into streams of summer traffic. And then the panic set in.

I swerved into the right lane, then onto the shoulder. I backed up as fast as I could, a hundred, two hundred, three hundred yards, cars and behemoth semis whizzing by me. My heart was pounding, I felt sick to my stomach. I waited for the inevitable crash that would come when one of those giant tractor-trailers would reduce Arcturus to a million splinters before careening into other vehicles in neighboring lanes. It would be a horrific disaster.

Now I was alongside where Arcturus lay, somehow miraculously parallel within the middle lane. It was a straight stretch of road and the oncoming vehicles were moving left and right, weaving around Arcturus, somehow managing to miss it by inches. Suddenly, there was a tiny seam in the flow and I ran into the middle lane and with adrenaline surging through my body, lifted Arcturus which was somehow still attached to the carry rack that was, until a few moments ago, affixed to the top of my car, and scampered back across one lane, now miraculously empty of traffic, to the relative safety of the highway shoulder. I was in shock.

Which was when the state trooper pulled up behind me. I could barely speak, let alone begin to tell him what had just happened. That a microburst had lifted Arcturus—rack and all—off the top of my car and sent it spinning down the highway. That somehow the rack had taken the brunt of the hit and that the damage seemed minimal—I could see a hairline crack along a few ribs and a small abrasion of the canvas covering—but otherwise the canoe looked remarkably intact. The trooper said what I knew to be true: that it was a miracle the canoe was not smashed and that no one had been injured or killed.

I started to breathe again but I was still paralyzed with fear. Now what was I going to do? I was an hour down the Thruway in the middle of nowhere with an injured canoe and a roof rack that had been ripped off my car and was now likely unserviceable. Slowly, slowly, my brain began to function again and it seemed that my only hope was to somehow get Arcturus reattached to my car and carry on toward home.

To this day, I cannot explain how the rack separated from the top of my car; or how Arcturus managed to tumble along one thin lane of highway before coming to rest exactly within it; or how some unseen hand parted the waters, allowing me to run out into the middle of the New York State Thruway and haul one hundred pounds of Arcturus and rack to safety; or how the frame of that rack was not impossibly bent and fitted back on top of my car. The state trooper stayed with me, watching, probably wondering why this was not a disaster of horrific proportion and why wasn’t the canoe secured atop my car in the first place. I wondered the same thing.

Once the canoe was reattached to the top of my car, I cautiously made my way down the highway, hazard lights flashing until I could pull into a rest stop. That’s when another thought hit me. How could I tell Jack that his beautiful baby—his handcrafted beauty—had sustained injury and would require surgical repair. I couldn’t take the boat back to Canada; Arcturus would be in limbo until I could head back north the following summer.

So now I’ll make this long story shorter. I drove home slowly, very slowly, arriving well after midnight, but nevertheless arriving, boat still atop car. The following day, I had time to carefully inspect the damage and somehow it was as minimal as it appeared. Twelve months later, I headed back to Canada and Jack repaired the cracked ribs. The abrasion on the canvas only need a little sanding and a fresh coat of paint. Rather than berate me, Jack laughed and marveled at how sturdy his little baby was. With a twinkle in his eye, he stills tells the story of the time his Bobs Special went surfing down the New York State Thruway.

And I still wonder about all of it: the moment of unfastening, the sheer luck of Arcturus coming to rest in the center lane, the miraculous absence of disaster, the long, slow, nerve-wracking drive home, wondering if the rack would hold, the exhausted relief at the end of the journey.

Icarus was the son of Daedalus, who, like my friend Jack, was a master craftsman. “Be careful,” Daedalus told his son, “don’t be complacent and fly too low, but neither be overly proud and fly too high.” It seems to me that maybe life is somewhere in between, maybe in the center lane.

I’ll be right back.

Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer with a home in Chestertown. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy Magazine. Two collections of his essays (“Musing Right Along” and “I’ll Be Right Back”) are available on Amazon. Jamie’s website is www.musingjamie.com

Thank Mike Bibb for Restoring the St. Michaels Boy Scout Log Cabin

June 30, 2020 by Letter to Editor 4 Comments

Kudos to St. Michaels Commissioner Mike Bibb for spearheading the restoration of our Boy Scout Log Cabin on St. Mary’s Square. The town owned building has been the longtime headquarters of Scout Troop 741. According to the Maryland Historic Trust, “The single-story clubhouse is an interesting example of the rustic building techniques developed during the early 20th century.”

Renovation of the 82-year-old building was a major undertaking, but Commissioner Bibb enthusiastically embraced the challenge, even though the scout cabin had rodent damaged electrical wiring, outdated galvanized plumbing, a lack of adequate foundation support for the beautiful granite fireplace, old shingles, deteriorated siding, and a few irascible resident squirrels/raccoons.

Last year, the Commissioners of St. Michaels agreed to budget $49,000 for the project. At the time, Commissioner Bibb advised that an additional $80,000-$100,000 would most likely be needed. Then, this civic minded, ‘can-do’ Commissioner set out to find funds and supporters. There was an overwhelming response. Many talented contractors donated their labor. Local companies provided their supplies at cost. Several local financial contributors stepped forward, and a multitude of community volunteers/scouts contributed hours of sweat equity.

The building is now air conditioned, has a full kitchen, ADA bathroom, internet and TV setups. The exterior improvements include new landscaping – visible as one walks up the handsome, winding brick walkway. This area also enhances the beauty of the adjoining St. Michaels Historic Museum.

The Scout House almost didn’t move forward! On November 12, 2019, Commissioner Bibb, due to unforeseen structural problems, requested an additional $17,500 from the town budget. After a series of questions and discussion, Commissioner Harrod made a motion to approve the request; Commissioner Glackin- seconded. The vote: Joyce Harrod-yes, Mike Bibb- yes, Dennis Glackin-yes, Jaime Windon-yes, Bill Boos-No.

I urge you to listen to the commissioners meeting recording. You can find it under “meetings minutes” on the Town of St. Michaels website. The scout cabin discussion occurs at minute 38:12.

Then… ask yourself, “Why would a commissioner vote against the completion of the Boy Scout cabin and, in doing so, refuse to support our local youth? REMEMBER, the town owns the scout cabin, which is currently a much needed larger town meeting space—debt free! Please vote on July 13. We deserve new leadership!

Sue Ann Raring
St. Michaels

Social Distemper by Al Sikes

June 29, 2020 by Al Sikes 1 Comment

E Pluribus Unum—Out of Many One. Check it out. It is the nation’s motto and is inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States. It was put forward by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, among others.

Or, check out a phrase used by Patrick Henry in his last public speech in 1799—“United We Stand and Divided We Fall.”

Is there any doubt that as we divide we leave behind trust, generosity, and the freedom to disagree without fracturing the institutions on which we must rely?

Sure, there is going to be disagreement—that is what our representative government and its branches of governance exist to resolve. And leaders that fail to understand their stewardship responsibility will see their power diminish along with the credibility of their institution—Congress, White House, Judiciary.

As President Trump has used his Presidency divisively, his power has diminished and is now almost illusory. Much of what he has done will carry his brand which, in time, will almost assure elimination or change.

And to those who make it their business to constantly attack the Supreme Court from the hard left or right, you too are complicit in weakening the unity that is crucial to our nation’s strength. I believe each Justice and certainly the Chief has an interpretive layer that considers the cohesion of the United States.

So let’s think about the hard left that wants to defund the police or seize territory. Or, the elected officials who have taken the constitutional oath but associate with the hardness. Too many in the media treat them affectionately given their distaste for the President. Believe me, this is not a free speech movement. And, “United” is far from their individual or collective minds.

Or, the far right that implicitly or worse finds racist rhetoric useful as a political tool. They wear their flag pins without any understanding of their country’s core principle—“Out Of Many One”. They become handmaidens of Chinese and Russian propagandists who specialize in exploiting division. America’s strength recedes as their hardness divides.

It is approximately four months before the election. The outcome is of obvious importance, but how we act toward our fellow voters between now and November 3rd is also important and is in our hands.

We, yes all of us, regardless of our Party affiliation or point of view are part of a rapidly unfolding drama—it features a fracturing of America that will be hard to heal. And, as we all know, dark moments are still ahead. Today’s presidential campaigns are always on the edge and this time around the incumbent believes acrimony is his ally.

President Trump, maybe more than any incumbent in our history, has serious weaknesses. In his weakness he turns to fear. Those on the hard left are his unwitting allies.

Most of Trump’s angry attacks of recent weeks have been a gift to Joe Biden. America, indeed the world, faces real threats from the coronavirus and when he uses disease and its ramifications to attack Governors and Mayors even much of his base is critical.

In the immediate aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, President Trump sounded the right notes but a day or so later he sounded like an out of tune trumpet player. America’s strength is found in its enduring institutions that help us work through perilous times. But, those institutions are strongest when the nation’s leader seeks to calm the waters.

The healing of America will not happen on the hard Left or Right. It will happen in the Center of the political spectrum as persons of good will urge political leaders to resolve their differences through the checks and balances and associated procedures that are so crucial in a diverse society.

Finally, they certainly should understand that when human perfection is held up as the standard against which we are judged, there will be no heroes. We, America, have been very fortunate to have had wise and courageous men and women as our forebears and it is certainly not wrong to constantly reexamine history to gain a greater appreciation for what we did right and wrong. But to those who, for whatever reason, choose to judge our history harshly they will always be able to find human frailties. Was George Washington perfect? No. What about Abraham Lincoln? No. Martin Luther King? No. Where are the heroes? They are there. They are there for those who understand that perfection is elusive even for Saints.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.

Follow Us